Out of all recorded species in our evolutionary history, which one do you believe that given slightly different circumstances, could have dominated the earth rather than humans?
For a while I thought it to be the neanderthals, but despite their extreme similarity to humans, their key aspect that proved to be fatal was that they were less sociable than humans. They didn't communicate as effectively and this is the reason for their downfall.
Anyone else have some ideas?
Also, a second question: In the event that all of humanity is destroyed, which species do you believe will lead the evolutionary path for the next dominant species?
This sounds like someone's homework.
>key aspect that proved to be fatal was that they were less sociable than humans
/x/philes doomed to extinction, well duh
Some type of reptile more than likely or elephants since there sociable conscious and highly intelligent there's even a video where one elephant uses human language to communicate with a zookeeper,even though it was minimal it shows a capability of understanding unlike most animals with the exception of us and monkeys.
Is nobody else gonna do it? OK. Pic related.
Also on the second question it depends on what killed us, it could be disease,war,famine,extreme weather,asteroids, or a super volcano. So I'm not sure there's a lot of different variables but if I had to guess I would say bacteria would prevail in any or all of these situations. Then give those things a few million years and new dominant species would arise like us after the dinosaurs but without mammals as the starting point.
I wonder though if in the grand cosmic scale of things what if reptiles and mammals only get one chance at being the dominant species I mean the t-rex's DNA is close to that of a chicken and velociraptors are the same with bird's so i wonder what would become of mammals?
There is no "correct" or "incorrect" theory about it, nobody knows exactly what happened.
In actuality the most likely scenario is that we competed with them for territory but simultaneously mated with them. The males were probably killed and the females were likely kept around for mating until their species itself became assimilated into our own.
So I fail to see what part of the "theory" I proposed is wrong? I never even said in my original post that they were wiped entirely through violence, but their species certainly became wiped out through human interaction. A combination of mating and violence resulted in their extinction.
Definitely this, octopus (octopi?) are incredibly intelligent and even have been observed using tools and weapons.
intelligent creepy bastards.
only in some species but that hardly matters, their clutch can be up to 200,000 eggs. Plus that trait could die out after a few hundred years with evolution.
Op is a faggot and doesn't know that neanderthals heavily interbred with our ancestors and homo sapiens are a composite species. Transitionary fossils have been found all over western Europe. The division is a myth and you obviously know nothing of anything that has happened in paleoanthropology in the past decade.
My pick is.....dolphins
Except that neanderthals didn't die out. Some of them died and some of them mixed.
A large role in the difference between blacks and caucasians is the fact that the latter has lots of neanderthal blood mixed in it.
It is a fact that neanderthal brains were larger than those of homo sapiens. But brain size in itself doesn't imply a superior intelligence. However there are numerous other indicators that support the theory that neanderthals were in fact more intelligent, such as developing tools earlier, building villages earlier, developing watercraft earlier, and ofcourse the fact that they're the first who started burying their dead.